Wider Caribbean Region CReW+: An Integrated Approach to

CReW+: An Integrated Approach to Water and Wastewater Management Using Innovative Solutions and Promoting Financing Mechanisms in the Wider Caribbean Region

Part I: Project Information

GEF ID9601

Project TypeFSP

Type of Trust FundGET

Project TitleCReW+: An Integrated Approach to Water and Wastewater Management Using Innovative Solutions and Promoting Financing Mechanisms in the Wider Caribbean Region

CountriesRegional, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname

Agency(ies)IADB, UNEP, IADB

Other Executing Partner(s):

UNEP CAR/RCU, National Pilot Executing Agencies

Executing Partner TypeMultilateral

GEF Focal AreaMulti Focal Area

TaxonomyFocal Areas, Influencing models, Stakeholders, Gender Equality, Capacity, Knowledge and Research

Rio Markers Climate Change MitigationClimate Change Mitigation 1

Climate Change AdaptationClimate Change Adaptation 1

Duration36In Months

Agency Fee($)1,344,954

A. Focal Area Strategy Framework and Program

Objectives/Programs Focal Area Outcomes Trust Fund

GEF Amount($)

Co-Fin Amount($)

IW-2_P3 Advance Conjunctive Management of Surface and Groundwater through Effective Institutional, Legal, and Policy Measures

GET 1,763,589 16,492,978

IW-2_P4 Addressing the Water/Food/Energy/Ecosystem Security Nexus GET 2,907,667 25,027,812

IW-3_P5 Reduce Nutrient Pollution Causing Ocean Hypoxia GET 5,735,824 55,207,502

IW-3_P6 Prevent Loss and Degradation of Coastal Habitats GET 3,729,060 41,812,125

LD-3_P4 Scaling-up sustainable land management through the Landscape Approach GET 232,569 3,308,825

LD-4_P5 Mainstreaming SLM in Development GET 125,229 1,781,675

SGP GET 450,000 6,402,286

Total Project Cost($) 14,943,938 150,033,203

B. Project description summary

Project ObjectiveTo implement innovative technical small-scale solutions in the Wider Caribbean Region using an integrated water and wastewater management approach building on sustainable financing mechanisms piloted through the Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater Management.

Project Component Financing Type

Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Trust Fund

GEF Project Financing($) Confirmed Co-Financing($)




Component 1 Institutional, policy, legislative and regulatory reforms for Integrated Water and Wastewater Management (IWWM). Sustainable Development Goals SDG: 1.4; 2.4; 3.9; 6.2; 6.3; 6.5; 6.6; 6.a; 6.b; 12.4; 12.5; 13.b; 14.1; 14.5; 15.5 Implementing agencies UNEP: $1,307,414 IDB: $1,383,586

Technical Assistance

Outcome 1.1

Consolidated improved and reformed institutional, policy and legislative frameworks for IWWM.

Outcome 1.2

Enhanced regional and national coordination, information exchange, science-based decisions, and reporting on relevant SDGs and MEAs, resulting from the use of national and regional platforms/databases for IWWM by national and regional institutions.

Outcome 1.3

Improved knowledge and skills to enable the monitoring of national reform processes for IWWM, and for reporting on relevant SDGs and MEAs.

Output 1.1.1

Diagnostic analysis of existing policy framework, legislations, guidelines and standards in support of IWWM, recommendations for reforms and development of national IWWM plans.

Output 1.1.2

Recommendations for amendments to the LBS Protocol to facilitate increased reuse of domestic wastewater including adoption of new criteria or standards for domestic wastewater discharges.

Output 1.1.3

Review, Analysis and Report for developing a new Strategy or Protocol on the management of freshwater resources within the framework of the Cartagena Convention.

Output 1.1.4

Country specific Cabinet/Parliament Submissions prepared for formal ratification of the LBS Protocol.

Output 1.2.1

New or updated national platforms/databases, supported by a regional platform for IWWM developed.

Output 1.3.1

Capacity building workshops to drive national and regional reforms for IWWM and, for reporting on relevant SDGs.

GET 2,691,000 8,716,310




Sustainable and tailor-made financing options for urban, peri-urban and rural IWWM. Sustainable Development Goals SDG: 17.1; 17.7; 17.8, 6.5, 6.6. Implementing agencies UNEP: $0 IDB: $1,825,000


Outcome 2.1

Improved understanding of different financing options and greater readiness for integrated wastewater management financing at small-scale local, community and national levels.

Outcome 2.2

Watershed management - Increased and sustainable financing for Integrated watershed management including for protecting surface and groundwater water sources.

Outcome 2.3

Improved knowledge and skills for successful design, establishment and management of appropriate financial mechanisms.

Output 2.1.1

Compendium of recommendations on sustainable financing options considering micro credit, tariffing and other innovative mechanisms developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders, based on a review of existing financing mechanisms for IWWM at small, local, community or national levels, depending upon country context.

Output 2.1.2

A series of community/rural specific financing action plans and business models to address IWWM including reuse.

Output 2.2.1

Compendium of innovative incentive options and recommendations on financing mechanisms for water conservation, pollution prevention, and water and wastewater reuse.

Output 2.2.2

Public–private mechanisms, payment options and recommendations on approaches to implement payment for ecosystem services developed.

Output 2.3.1

Training modules for selected persons and agencies in the design, strategic planning, establishment and management of the financial mechanisms.

GET 1,825,000 9,336,037




Component 3 Provision of innovative small-scale, local, rural, peri-urban and community-based solutions for IWWM. Sustainable Development Goals SDG: 1.4; 2.4; 3.3; 3.9; 6.2; 6.3; 6.5; 6.6; 6.b; 7.b; 12.4; 12.5; 14.1; 14.5; 15.5; 17.17 Implementing agencies UNEP: $3,832,862 IDB: $4,663332


Outcome 3.1

Improved wastewater treatment, including reuse, in rural and peri-urban hotspots using low tech and IWWM solutions.

Outcome 3.2

Improved life cycle management, circular economy and efficiency in water use-consumption promoting source protection and water reuse in the joint management of surface and groundwater resources in critical watersheds/hot spots.

Outcome 3.3

Improved knowledge and skills within targeted communities to enable implementation of innovative low-cost integrated water and wastewater management solutions.

Output 3.1.1

Compendium of innovative technologies adapted to small-scale situations, supported by technical assistance, made available to all participating countries.

Output 3.1.2

Rural and community level Integrated and Innovative Water and Wastewater low tech solutions implemented.

Output 3.1.3

Intervention in Barbados re: Star Allocation from Barbados (Land Degradation and Biodiversity).

Output 3.2.1

Integrated guidelines and implementation plan consistent with IWRM with a focus on water source protection and use efficiency, land use protection and food, energy and ecosystems nexus trade-offs.

Output 3.2.2

Demonstration projects implemented focusing on: (1) Prevention, Reduction and Control of point and non-point sources of pollution source through best land management practices and (2) Development and Implementation of water source protection, water use efficiency and reuse strategies and action plans.

Output 3.3.1

Training on innovative low-cost integrated water and wastewater management such as though webinars, MOOC, training programmes with the participation of civil society.

GET 8,059,322 114,662,391




Component 4 Knowledge Management and Advocacy on the importance of IWWM order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable Development Goals SDG: 1.4; 3.3; 3.9; 3.d; 5.5; 6.5, 6.6, 6.a; 12.6; 12.8; 13.3; 13.b; 17.6; 17.7; 17.8; 17.16; 17.17 Implementing agencies UNEP: $953,152 IDB: $703,848


Outcome 4.1

Improved awareness and understanding of the advantages of implementing integrated approaches within targeted communities to enable implementation of low-tech and integrated water and wastewater management solutions.

Outcome 4.2

Improved access to an information exchange mechanism, including knowledge of experiences and lessons learnt, as well as improved information sharing capability with GEF and the wider, local and national communities amongst all 18 participating countries.

Output 4.1.1

A communications strategy developed and implemented, including information and dissemination of products related to IWWM and watershed management.

Output 4.1.2

Updated CReW clearinghouse mechanism on financial options, small- and large-scale wastewater treatment technologies, and wastewater and water management policies and practices developed.

Output 4.2.1

Documented best practices, lessons and experiences from all Components.

Output 4.2.2

Operational information exchange mechanism for GEF and non-GEF projects established.

GET 1,657,000 9,853,465




Sub Total ($) 14,232,322 142,568,203

Project Management Cost (PMC)

GET 711,616 7,465,000

Sub Total($) 711,616 7,465,000

Total Project Cost($) 14,943,938 150,033,203

C. Sources of Co-financing for the Project by name and by type

Sources of Co-financing Name of Co-financier Type of Co-financing Amount($)

GEF Agency IDB Loans 137,152,500

GEF Agency IDB Grant 708,000

GEF Agency IDB In-kind 450,000

GEF Agency UN Environment In-kind 500,000

GEF Agency UN Environment Grant 2,000,000

GEF Agency UN Environment In-kind 2,183,186

Government Costa Rica In-kind 4,061,439

Government Saint Lucia In-kind 394,500

Government Trinidad and Tobago In-kind 873,689

Government Trinidad and Tobago Grant 714,889

Others CWWA In-kind 200,000

Private Sector CAWASA In-kind 100,000

Others CARPHA In-kind 130,000

Others Amigos de Sian Ka'an In-kind 565,000

Total Co-Financing($) 150,033,203

D. Trust Fund Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Country(ies), Focal Area and the Programming of Funds

Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds NGI Amount($) Fee($)

IADB GET Regional International Waters No 8,188,040 736,923

UNEP GET Regional International Waters No 6,398,100 575,829

IADB GET Land Degradation No 357,798 32,202

Total Grant Resources($) 14,943,938 1,344,954

E. Non Grant Instrument

NON-GRANT INSTRUMENT at CEO Endorsement

Includes Non grant instruments? NoIncludes reflow to GEF? No

F. Project Preparation Grant (PPG)

PPG Amount ($)300,000

PPG Agency Fee ($)27,000

Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds NGI Amount($) Fee($)

IADB GET Regional International Waters No 168,907 15,202

UNEP GET Regional International Waters No 131,093 11,798

Total Project Costs($) 300,000 27,000

Core Indicators Indicator 7 Number of shared water ecosystems (fresh or marine) under new or improved cooperative management

Number (Expected at PIF) Number (Expected at CEO Endorsement) Number (Achieved at MTR) Number (Achieved at TE)

Shared water EcosystemCount 0 0 0 0

Indicator 7.1 Level of Transboundary Diagonostic Analysis and Strategic Action Program (TDA/SAP) formulation and implementation (scale of 1 to 4; see Guidance)

Shared Water Ecosystem Rating (Expected at PIF) Rating (Expected at CEO Endorsement) Rating (Achieved at MTR) Rating (Achieved at TE)

Indicator 7.2 Level of Regional Legal Agreements and Regional management institution(s) (RMI) to support its implementation (scale of 1 to 4; see Guidance)


Select SWE 2 Indicator 7.3 Level of National/Local reforms and active participation of Inter-Ministeral Committees (IMC; scale 1 to 4; See Guidance)


Select SWE 2 Indicator 7.4 Level of engagement in IWLEARN throgh participation and delivery of key products(scale 1 to 4; see Guidance)


Select SWE 2 Indicator 11 Number of direct beneficiaries disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF investment

Number (Expected at PIF) Number (Expected at CEO Endorsement) Number (Achieved at MTR) Number (Achieved at TE)

Female 85,000MaleTotal 0 85000 0 0

Provide additional explanation on targets, other methodologies used, and other focal area specifics (i.e., Aichi targets in BD) including justification where core indicator targets are not provided

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

The gender beneficiaries for that particular indicator are 50% male – 50% female

PART II: Project JUSTIFICATION

1. Project Description

1) the global environmental and/or adaptation problems, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed;

The global environmental and/or adaptation problems, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed have not been changed, but new reports with significant information have been published since PIF approval, the details of which have been included in the UN Environment prodoc.

2) the baseline scenario or any associated baseline projects;

The following information provides updates about the region’s baseline scenario since PIF approval.

2.1. LBS Protocol

After the PIF approval, Honduras ratified the LBS protocol. To date it has been ratified 14 countries in the WCR out of the 18 participating countries in this project.

2.2. Regional Baseline

Monitoring and data management: The State of the Convention Area Report (SOCAR) developed by the Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP CEP,2019) helped improve the understanding of the region’s wastewater and sewage issues. It compiled data and monitoring indicators for pollution and wastewater. Overall, since there is no regional water resource database although efforts have been made to collect water quality data, it hinders the integrated management of water and wastewater. In some countries, multiple ministries are involved in water quality monitoring such as the ministries of environment and health, and this further complicates managing data in an integrated manner at the national level.

Studies conducted post PIF approval stage, highlighted that critical data gaps currently exist for SDG 11 (Cities and Communities), SDG 6 (Water), and SDG 14 (Oceans) (UNEP, 2019). For many countries, the costs incurred to establish and maintain effective data infrastructures are often too high compared to the limited budget available to central and local governments. This lack of resources poses important limitations in the capacity of countries to monitor and report on the implementation of the environmental dimension of Agenda 2030

Regional strategy and action plan - The 14th HLF-Water of the 27th Annual CWWA Conference and Exhibition held in October 2018, received and accepted the Regional Strategy and Action Plan (RSAP) for improving Governance and Building Climate Resilience in the Water Sector in the Caribbean. The plan seeks to address the shortcomings of water resource management by providing recommendations aimed at developing national capacity to accurately assess water resources, carry out basin water budgets and supply-demand balances, and the adoption of integrated water resources management, acknowledging the need to address social and gender equity, economic efficiency and ecological sustainability. At the governance level, the plan calls for improved legislative and institutional structures, mainstreamed climate change policies, and strong climate change adaptation plans for the water sector.

2.3. GEF IW projects in the region not captured during PIF approval

Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme to Ensure Integrated and Sustainable Management of the Transboundary Water Resources of the Amazon River Basin Considering Climate Variability and Change project is a full-size project funded by the GEF. This project is currently pending CEO endorsement and will be implemented by UN Environment and executed by the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) as well as the 8 participating countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela). The project will support the participating countries in implementing the Strategic Action Programme for the Amazon River Basin, promoting Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and source-to-sea approaches, to improve ecological, social and economic benefits and, enabling the countries to meet their relevant SDG and convention targets in the Amazon basin. Colombia, Guyana and Suriname participate in both CReW+ project and this Amazon River Basin project and as such, synergies will be sought with regard to watershed management.

Integrated Management of Water Resources of the Mira-Mataje and Carchi-Guaitara, Colombia Ecuador Binational Basins is a full-size project funded by the GEF to be implemented by UNDP and executed by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia (MADS) and the National Water Secretariat of Ecuador. The project aims to promote IWRM in the Mira Mataje and Carchi Guaitara river basins shared by Colombia and Ecuador by strengthening the institutional and managerial capacities at the regional, local and community levels for achieving environmental and socio-economic benefits. Under the project, Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) will be conducted in the Mira-Mathe and Carchi-Guaitara basin. Based on the TDA, SAP will be developed. The project will have capacity development activities to promote IWRM and will have four small-scale innovative interventions on IRWM as well as two pre-feasibility studies for investment in the basin. As Colombia is participating in the CReW+ project and this project, exchange of information will be needed to join forces in promoting IWRM and integrated wastewater management at the national level.

Developing Organizational Capacity for Ecosystem Stewardship and Livelihoods in Caribbean Small-Scale Fisheries (StewardFish) is a medium-size project being implemented by FAO since 2017. Seven member countries of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanisms (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines) participate in the CReW+ project. The project aims to empower fisherfolks throughout fisheries value chains, and to ensure their engagement in resource management, decision-making and sustainable livelihoods, with strengthened institutional support at all levels. Under Component 2 of the project, ecosystem approach to fisheries is being promoted with focus on pollution reduction for the protection of healthy habitats. StewardFish project might support national activities in Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines by engaging local fisherfolks. Therefore, their engagement as a key stakeholder in the CReW+ project is crucial.

2.4. Non-GEF projects/programmes in the region

IDB’s Water and Sanitation Division is currently executing more than 30 projects that support regional actions to address water and wastewater management (technical and financing mechanisms). Other divisions of the Bank, such as the Climate Change and Sustainability Division, are also supporting initiatives linked to the CReW+ objectives. For example, in Jamaica, climate change effects are being addressed through a project focusing on increasing coral reef sustainability and resilience through an effort to research and address the damaging impacts of mainly nutrients from sewage and fertilizers, changes to water quality driven by construction, housing, hotels, agriculture and climate change upon coral reefs

Table 1 provides a list of some of the relevant IBD water and sanitation projects in the Caribbean since PIF approval.

Table 1. IBD relevant water and sanitation projects in the Caribbean

Country Project Title Description

Costa Rica

Support to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) in the implementation of the Potable Water and Sanitation Program

The aim of the program is to improve the environmental conditions and provide improved health conditions for the Costa Rican population. The program aims to expand and rehabilitate the potable water and sanitation systems in rural and peri-urban areas of high poverty in the country, contributing to river decontamination in the San José Metropolitan area, and ensuring the sustainability of the systems in the longterm within a framework that promotes community engagement.

Dominican Republic

Urban-rural water-sanitation integration project in the province of Santiago

The main objective of this project is to provide increased and improved access to water and sanitation services to the people of the province of Santiago.

Honduras

Basic infrastructure (potable water, sanitation, energy) in the Bay Islands, in support of sustainable tourism

The objective of this Technical Cooperation (TC) is to generate technical, economic, socio-environmental information necessary for the development of the Water and Sanitation Investment Program for the Bay Islands (HO-L1196) .This program aims at improving the quality and expanding the coverage of basic services, reducing environmental pollution in the reef and promoting environmental sustainability, advancement of appropriate technologies, and the adoption of management and business models that will ensure reliable and longterm services.

MexicoProgram for the sustainability of drinking water and sanitation services in rural communities

The objective of this program is to develop Operating Rules for PROAGUA (water program) in its rural sections. This effort will be funded by IDB.

SurinameSupport to Sustainable Water Management (SWM) Institutional and Operational Strengthening

The objective of this Technical Cooperation (TC) is to develop a Strengthening Action Plan (AP) for the improvement of SWM operations performance and the strengthening of its groundwater management capacities and risk pollution control.

Trinidad and Tobago

Water Supply Improvement Program The objective of this program is to provide a strategy which will enable Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) to achieve its policy of ensuring continuous water supply to its customers, i.e. the people of Trinidad and Tobago: (i) Improve the quality of service to customers; (ii) ensure consistent production of high quality water that is free from discoloration and bacteria; (iii) and, ensure 24 hours/7 water supply to at least 60 per cent of the households in Trinidad and Tobago.

Caribbean Regional Track of the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR) is a project funded by IDB and executed by the University of West Indies. The project aims to i) improve geospatial data management in the region and to ii) pilot and upscale climate-resilient initiatives in six countries in the region (Jamaica, Haiti, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Outputs under component 1-3 of this project will aim at strengthening the management of regional and national climate data. Downscaled climate models for the Caribbean will be developed in order to support decision-making and adaptation planning. Component 4 of the project will finance and implement

activities in different fields including health, marine, agriculture, and water. Activities in the water sector will be co-implemented by CARPHA including establishing Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) systems in Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, and St Lucia. To enable sustainability, policy work and capacity building activities will also be conducted.

The Nexus Regional Dialogue Platform is a global inter-sectoral platform supported by the European Commission and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), which aims at strengthening the political processes needed at the regional and national levels to meet the increasing demand for water, energy and food. In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the platform works with the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) to develop policies and action plans and bring forth nexus issues at a political level. A regional Nexus Action Plan will be prepared and subsequent national activities will be conducted in Peru and Costa Rica .

Japan-Caribbean Climate Change Partnership (J-CCCP) envisages to strengthen the capacity of countries in the Caribbean to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies, as prioritised in their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). The project is financed by the Government of Japan and is implemented by UNDP in Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname. The project has three components. Component 1 focuses on supporting policy environment including preparation of sector-based action plans. Component 2 focuses on technology transfer for low-carbon climate resilient development. Under this component, technologies related to drinking water, agriculture and energy will be tested. So far water harvesting, micro-dams and water saving incentives have been tested by the project. Component 3 focuses on creating a knowledge network on climate change in the Caribbean. Awareness building activities on climate change risks and adaptation measures in targeted countries will also be conducted.

3) the proposed alternative scenario, GEF focal area[1]1 strategies, with a brief description of expected outcomes and components of the project;

3.1. Alternative scenario

During the project preparation phase and based on national consultations, the activities selected were better fitted under Land Degradation focal area program 4 and 5, therefore the decision was made to support Barbados to achieve these objectives instead of program 1 and 2 (as committed at PIF stage). The proposed project will contribute to the following GEF LD Objectives/Programs:

Objective 3: Reduce pressures on natural resources by managing competing land uses in broader landscapes

Program 4: Scaling-up sustainable land management through the Landscape Approach

Objective 4: Maximize transformational impact through mainstreaming of SLM for agro-ecosystem services

Program 5: Mainstreaming SLM in Development

The project will promote sustainable use of land degradation by implementing small-scale, local, rural and peri-urban and community based solutions to reduce nutrient pollution, improve marine, coastal ecosystems and reducing the pressure on natural resources. It will also offer an integrated understanding of hydrological behaviour under varying climatic

conditions. The Barbados national package, Annex K, provides detailed information about the planned activities that will be carried out using the total STAR allocation (LD). The project will implement innovative small-scale treatment options and provide recommendations for the implementation of small-scale wastewater treatment and reuse projects. It will also develop a Water Reuse strategy and programme and promote the adoption of water reuse legislation and standards. Test the feasibility of using constructed wetlands. Develop a water and wastewater tariff charging policy, and establish enterprises aimed at improving soil quality and overall agricultural productivity. A payment for ecological services (PES) enhancing aquifer recharge will also be deployed and data protocols for SLM and water resources management will be generated.

3.2. CReW+ Components, Outcomes, Outputs and outline activities

The rationale of the components and outcomes remain the same with no changes to the PIF, however some of the outputs have been refined or combined in order to provide more clarity and a better comprehensive structure. The main changes are the following:

- Changes in the Outputs under:

COMPONENT 1

Old Outputs 1.1.1; 1.1.2; 1.1.3 have been combined into one output (New Output 1.1.1) due to their dependent nature. It will be more cost effective to implement the three outputs as one because in order to develop the institutional national strategies, it is necessary to perform a diagnostic and provide recommendations before.

PIF CEO Endorsement

Output 1.1.1 Diagnostic analysis of existing policy framework, legislations, guidelines and standards in support of IWWM conducted in 9 countries

Output 1.1.2Recommendations for reforming institutions policies, legislations and regulations in support of Integrated Water and Wastewater Management (IWWM) for at least 9 countries

Output 1.1.3 9 national development strategies and plans incorporating multi-sectorial approaches to IWWM

Output 1.1.1 Diagnostic analysis of existing policy framework, legislations, guidelines and standards in support of IWWM, recommendations for reforms and development of national IWWM plans

COMPONENT 2

Output 2.2.2 at PIF stage is now moved as Output 2.2.1 and vice versa. The order of these output was changed in order to maintain the consistency with the others outcomes. Each output first develops a compendium/analysis/recommendation, and implements activities/interventions. The wording of the output was also refined in order to facilitate better understanding the target of this output.

PIF CEO Endorsement

Output 2.2.2Innovative incentive options and recommendations on financing mechanisms for water conservation, pollution prevention, and water and wastewater reuse developed in 3 critical watersheds/ hotspots.

Output 2.2.1Compendium of innovative incentive options and recommendations on financing mechanisms for water conservation, pollution prevention, and water and wastewater reuse

Output 2.2.1Public–private mechanisms, payment options and recommendations on approaches to implement payment for ecosystem services developed in 3 critical watersheds/hotspots.

Output 2.2.2Public–private mechanisms, payment options and recommendations on approaches to implement payment for ecosystem services developed.

COMPONENT 3

Output 3.1.2 at PIF stage has been removed because similar activities are already being considered under other outputs. The funds have been reallocated to Outcome 3.2 Improved life cycle management, circular economy and efficiency in water use-consumption promoting source protection and water reuse in the joint management of surface and groundwater resources in critical watersheds/hot spots.

A new Output 3.1.3. was added to cover the LD and BD STAR funded activities in Barbados.

Output 3.1.4. at PIF stage was removed because the creation of micro-credit was better placed and will be addressed along with other financial activities covered by component 2. The funds have been reallocated from this to Output 3.1.2.

Output 3.2.2 and Output 3.2.3 at PIF stage have been merged into one new Output 3.2.1 which aims at providing guidelines related to IWRM. The order of the outputs have been switched, and now output 3.2.1 (at PIF stage) has become Output 3.2.1. This was done in order to maintain the consistency with the others outcomes.

PIF CEO Endorsement

Output 3.1.2Innovative policies, technologies and good practice recommendations developed and incorporated into investment strategies/ plans for water use, pollution prevention and conservation in critical watersheds/hot spots

Output 3.1.3Intervention in Barbados re: Star Allocation from Barbados (Land degradation)

Output 3.1.4Using Output 2.1.1, a total of 2 micro-credit or other similar small-scale financing facilities established in at least 2 countries to service future investments in small innovative wastewater management projects at local, rural or peri-urban levels

Output 3.2.2Parameters required to improve water source protection and use efficiency identified through activities such as water footprint analysis, land use protection, improved understanding of virtual water and water trading within and between countries; better water use efficiency and understanding of the trade-offs and connections between water being used for food, energy and ecosystems

Output 3.2.1Integrated guidelines and implementation plan consistent with IWRM with a focus on water source protection and use efficiency, land use protection and food, energy and ecosystems nexus trade-offs

Output 3.2.1 3 demonstration projects implemented focusing on: (1) Prevention, Reduction and Control of point and non-point sources of pollution source through best land management practices and (2) Development and Implementation of water source protection, water use efficiency and reuse strategies and action plans

Output 3.2.2Demonstration projects implemented focusing on: (1) Prevention, Reduction and Control of point and non-point sources of pollution source through best land management practices and (2) Development and Implementation of water source protection, water use efficiency and reuse strategies and action plans

Output 3.2.3Volume of water (m3) conserved due to land use protection, effective water conservation/efficiency practices at end-use consumption, recommended by output 3.3.2, implemented in 3 watersheds/hotspots.MERGED in Output 3.2.2

4) Incremental/additional cost reasoning and expected contributions from the baseline, the GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF, and co-financing;

The incremental/additional cost reasoning and expected contributions from the baseline remains the same, however, the text has been refined for enhanced clarity. Please refer to UN Environment prodoc for more information.

At PIF stage, the project had commited to provide US$ 148,735,807 in co-financing from IDB, UN Environment and their partners. However, during the PPG phase, additional partners and sources of cofinancing were identified and table C was modified accordingly. The new total co-financing amounts to US$ $150,033,203. In addition, several regional agencies including CARPHA, CAWASA and CWWA will be supporting the project through in-kind and in-cash co-financing. In particular, synergies with ongoing and future IDB-funded financing are present and blended with the project.

5) Global environmental benefits (GEFTF) and/or adaptation benefits (LDCF/SCCF); and

Global environmental benefits and/or adaptation benefits have not changed from the PIF.

http://www.thegef.org/gef/policy/incremental_costs

http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/1325

http://www.thegef.org/gef/policy/co-financing

http://www.thegef.org/gef/policy/incremental_costs

http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/1325

http://www.thegef.org/gef/GEB

http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF.R.5.12.Rev_.1.pdf

6) Innovativeness, sustainability and potential for scaling up.

The CReW+ project is expected to demonstrate innovative technical, training and financial solutions for enhancing and expanding wastewater treatment capacity and safeguarding freshwater resources in the Caribbean. This will be achieved through: Financial Mechanisms (mainly through business models, financial mechanisms for different economic sectors and at different scales, by exploring approaches such as integrated cost recovery, by promoting one-water as a resource, and by promoting multipurpose facilities and the water-energy-food-climate nexus); Funding options (mainly through innovative means to obtain funds from alternative sources such as property taxes, environmental taxes, payment for ecosystem foods and services, and taxes on tourism, and not just through tariffs and government subsidies); Training (through more online training at a national level, MOOCs and more formal programmes for certification and accreditation); and Technical Solutions coupled with the potential value of waste water in the technologies being implemented, upscaling and replication of technology, seeking to achieve sustainable closed cycle projects (one water). Natural treatment processes will be prioritized, using innovative technologies with low levels of investment and low operational and maintenance costs for removal of pollutants and reuse of treated effluents. Examples are constructed wetlands, reed beds, sand filters, stabilization ponds, treatment and anaerobic sludge blanket digestion systems. Reuse technologies such as composting, agricultural irrigation, methane production during anaerobic processes and grey water reutilization will be incorporated in the solutions appropriately. Proposed measures for protecting watersheds and freshwater basins including surface and ground water resources will consider community level land-use planning which promotes long-term sustainability and reduced vulnerability to Climate Change.

Sustainability and the potential for scaling up some of the activities of this project will be carried out through: the development of inventories of financing options; rural/community specific financing action plans; country specific business models; the institutionalization of business plans at local and national levels, and plans for upscaling/ replicating to guarantee continuity; use of payment for ecosystem benefits (PES) and payments for improved property value resulting from wastewater treatment and/or protection of watersheds and freshwater basins; and development of a regional database for Integrated Water and Wastewater Management, including the protection of water sources and increased efficiencies in water use.

Two fundamental aspects of this scaling-up approach are: improvement of the enabling environment through policy, legislative action, institutional engagement and greater investments; and the identification and deployment of technological options (mostly decentralized) that offer the most potential for replicability and sustainability. The Caribbean Platform for Wastewater and Nutrients Management developed by the GEF CReW Project in collaboration with UN Environment Global Programme of Action will further assist in replication and scaling up activities within the Wider Caribbean Region.

[1] For biodiversity projects, in addition to explaining the project’s consistency with the biodiversity focal area strategy, objectives and programs, please also describe which Aichi Target(s) the project will directly contribute to achieving..

A.2. Child Project?

http://www.thegef.org/gef/content/did-you-know-%E2%80%A6-convention-biological-diversity-has-agreed-20-targets-aka-aichi-targets-achie

If this is a child project under a program, describe how the components contribute to the overall program impact.

Not applicableA.3. StakeholdersPlease provide the Stakeholder Engagement Plan or equivalent assessment.

The project is being developed for eighteen countries, from larger mainland states to SIDS. Activities to be implemented in each country will further determine the particular stakeholders to be consulted, and are elaborated in the National Packages (Annex K – AB). While actions to improve the policy, legislation and institutional environments will, for example, target decision-makers within ministries, utilities and relevant sectors, those aimed at improving local communities through innovative watershed protection and wastewater treatment will target existing community-based organizations and groups.

CReW worked mainly with stakeholders in the water and wastewater sector at both national and regional levels, due to its focus on the enabling environment and the development of Sustainable Financing Mechanisms (SFMs). Given the multi-sectorial nature of water and wastewater management, this often-meant consulting via nationally appointed committees or inter-ministerial committees. CREW+ is expected to include more consultation with local stakeholders in rural areas due to the range of innovative technologies to be introduced and activities to safeguard freshwater resources at source. It will also include more consultation with NGOs, CSOs, and the private sector.

Local communities are a key stakeholder of this project and will be directly engaged in the national-level interventions under Component 2 and 3. These community members include farmers and their associations, tourism operators, local chambers of commerce, local governments and councils, NGOs, youth and women’s’ groups as well as local residents. CWWA with its network of community-based organizations (CSOs) will support full engagement of local communities. Further details of different national stakeholders to be involved in national interventions are contained in Annex (K – AB). The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) will also contribute to the development of community-based livelihood initiatives related to wastewater management (Output 3.1.2) and integrated water management (Output 3.2.2).

Stakeholders can be divided according to their role in the project’s activities (see Figure 1) and some of the main stakeholders are indicated in Table 3, to be further elaborated during the Inception Phase of the Project with additional partners if appropriate. Some of the main partnerships at the regional level, and their indicative role in the project are summarized in Tables 2.

Figure 1: The various roles of stakeholders

Table 2. Key Stakeholders for CReW+

Category of Stakeholder Role Main stakeholders

A-High power, /high interest over the project= Key player

· Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS);

· The Organization of American States (OAS);

· The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO);

· National governments, Water and wastewater utilities;

· Local communities;

· US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) UNU;

· The Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA);

· Regional Network for Water and Sanitation in Central America (RRASCA);

· The United Nations University (UNU);

· The Caribbean Water & Sewerage Association (CAWASA);

· Caribbean Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA);

· Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD);

· GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP);

· Commercial banks.

Category of Stakeholder Role Main stakeholders

B-High power/ low interest over the project =Meet their needs

· Central American Integration System (SICA);

· Caribbean Community (CARICOM);

· Development Bank of Latin America (CAF);

· The Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO);

· The Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association (CHTA).

C-Low power/ high interest over the project= Show consideration

· GPA and GW2I;

· UN Environment Regional Office;

· The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);

· The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC / CEPAL);

· UN Water;

· Global Water Operators Partnership (WOP) and regional WOPs – CariWOP and WOP-LAC AIDIS;

· The Centre for Resource Management and Environment Studies (CERMES) of the University of the West Indies;

· Water.org;

· Millennium Water Alliance;

· Water for People;

· GWP-C and GWP-CA;

· GWP-C Journalists Network on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM);

· Caribbean Environmental Reporters Network;

· LatinClima;

· Red de Periodistas por el Desarrollo Sostenible;

· Caribbean Farmers Network (CaFAN).

Category of Stakeholder Role Main stakeholders D-Low power /low interest over the project= Least important

· Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA);

· Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre;

· The Caribbean Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH);

· The Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI); Water and Sanitation Cooperation Fund / Japan Water Forum Fund.

Table 3. Partners’ information

Partner Expertise Strength Agreed roles/responsibilities in project implementationImplementing Agency (IA)/ Executing Agency (EA) partnershipUnited Nations Environment Programme

GEF Implementing Agency and leading global environmental authority that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of the SDGs

Implementation of GEF projects, hosts UN Environment Car/RCU and UN Environment/ROLAC in Caribbean and Latin America

Implementing Agency and Co-Executing Agency (under UNEP Car/RCU). Oversight under UN Environment Car/RCU of the national project interventions

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

Financing, large-scale investment projects on infrastructure

Bring in large-scale loans to member countries; Long-term experiences of financing investment projects especially for the continental Latin American countries

Implementing Agency, and lead Component 2 of the project to develop financial plans to allow financial sustainability of national interventions

GIZ Service provider in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development and international education work

Significant experience in working in the WCR on IWWM project execution

Lead executing agency for IDB implemented activities

UN Environment Car/RCU

Regional Seas program and Secretariat to the Cartagena Convention

Supports the 25 United Nations Member States in the Wider Caribbean Region that have ratified the Cartagena Convention and its Protocols and executes numerous regional projects and actions regarding IWWM

Lead executing agency for CREW+ (UN Environment implemented activities). Ensures results of CREW+ are fully in line with the Cartagena Convention and Protocols and are widely disseminated through its web-sites and official meetings

Global and Regional co-executing partners

Partner Expertise Strength Agreed roles/responsibilities in project implementationCaribbean Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA)

Education and training to water and wastewater professionals in the Caribbean

Has a strong professional network of professionals working in water and wastewater management in the Caribbean. Experiences in professional training for the industry.

Provide training and assist public awareness-raising activities

The Caribbean Water & Sewerage Association (CAWASA)

Operational training for water utilities in the region

Issues operator certification to utilities (private sector stakeholder)

Conduct regional trainings and issue certification to water utilities

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

International cooperation to support environmental programme

Long-term engagement in the Cartagena Convention and its LBS Protocol.

Coordinate and link the activities under the project with the process for the State of the Convention Areas Report (SOCAR)

The Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA)

Implement a ridge-to- reef approach for pollution prevention

Experience with regional projects. Currently implementing the IWECO project and presents an opportunity for synergies with the project.

Cooperate in conducting training on monitoring and information management

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO-WHO)

Technical cooperation to prevent and respond to diseases, including water-borne diseases

Long history in assisting countries in the region with the improvement of health systems and related policies

Provide technical inputs and assistance to countries to set appropriate regional and national discharge standards

The project will collaborate with the GEF funded IWEco project to ensure synergies on Water Resources and Wastewater Management, and with GEF IWEco, World Bank/GEF Caribbean Regional Oceanscape Project (CROP) project and UNDP/GEF CLME+ projects to promote joint capacity building and knowledge exchange, building on partnerships and networks already established in the Wider Caribbean.

The project will actively involve the relevant stakeholders through:

Regional meetings of the Project Steering Committee.High-level regional meetings to discuss the prospects of IWWM in the Wider Caribbean region.

Training courses and technical support for institutional, administrative and technical strengthening for IWWM.Seminars and international meetings to exchange knowledge and experiences – IW LEARNIntervention projects.Regional partnerships and initiatives

Documents

Title Submitted

In addition, provide a summary on how stakeholders will be consulted in project execution, the means and timing of engagement, how information will be disseminated, and an explanation of any resource requirements throughout the project/program cycle to ensure proper and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Information provided in the above boxes. Select what role civil society will play in the project:

Consulted only; Yes

Member of Advisory Body; Contractor;

Co-financier;

Member of project steering committee or equivalent decision-making body;

Executor or co-executor;

Other (Please explain) Yes

Information provided in the above boxes.

A.4. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment

Please briefly include below any gender dimensions relevant to the project, and any plans to address gender in project design (e.g. gender analysis).

Gender mainstreaming is a cross-cutting element related to all stakeholder participation and involvement in the project which seeks to promote gender equality and empowerment of women throughout the implementation of activities under the CReW+ project. Emphasis will be placed on advancing gender mainstreaming within policy and capacity building in support of all the components. Gender audits and targeted analyses to ascertain derived benefits by stakeholders will be conducted, along with training that will strengthen gender-equitable access to ecosystem services, safe and adequate water, sanitation, food security and other benefits derived from project implementation. Support will be given to the countries to improve the enabling environment so as to facilitate the implementation of policy and the legislative provisions that are not only responsive to the needs of private sector and natural resource user groups, but are gender-sensitive and maximize opportunity for positive socio-economic growth and development amongst special interest groups at risk. CReW+ will also work closely with CARICOM to integrate the strategy on gender currently in the process of development, and will ensure alignment with the GEF Policy on Gender[1]. It is envisaged that gender mainstreaming will be an integral part of the project and process towards the achievement of equity in social development. In recognition of the relevance of gender to national development, most governments have indeed established national machineries for the advancement of women and gender equality, however, despite the espoused commitments there are still many areas of inequalities that remain problematic. The promotion of gender equality continues to be relegated to a lower level of national priority. The findings from the mainstreaming of gender emanating from this project will contribute greatly to understanding the gender components of human development, the kernel of any effective environmental development strategy.

The Project will further elaborate a detailed gender action plan during the inception phase. This builds on the multiple project outputs, sub-outputs and activities that include gender-specific elements. In addition, the project will ensure that all meetings, workshops, twinning exchanges and capacity-building activities have gender-balanced and gender-sensitive participation, promote gender sensitive policies and actions, and record sex disaggregated data of participants.

In this context, the project will complete:

· Gender analysis completed during the project inception phase, including for the national actions;

· Incorporation of gender dimensions into the national policy frameworks, regional cooperation mechanisms and initiatives (Component 1).

· Gender dimension and women’s empowerment in national intervention projects on IWWM will be ensured through the development of a “Gender Aware Beneficiary Assessment (GABA)” that will provide valuable data on the gender dimensions of the procedural and operational limitations that beneficiaries experience in accessing potable water and sanitation. Gender will be further built-in the design of interventions to ensure that there is meaningful inclusion of women and men, particularly in the areas where community governance bodies will be strengthened. It becomes paramount that women are represented and their voice and participation be

encouraged and documented in a systematic manner. Community-based interventions will place the focus on beneficiaries as active players in their development, evidenced by the bottom up, participatory approach taken towards the development and proposed implementation of the proposed solutions (Component 3).

Gender mainstreaming in communication, public participation etc (Component 4). “Champions” from local/rural community supported to present best practices and success stories in IWWM (to include Woman Champions in the water sector);

· Special support for women's associations that will contribute to give sustainability to the project.

[1] GEF Secretariat. (2017). Policy on Gender Equality. Retrieved from https://www.thegef.org/council-meeting-documents/policy-gender-equality

Documents

Title Submitted

Does the project expect to include any gender-responsive measures to address gender gaps or promote gender equality and women empowerment?

Yes If yes, please upload document or equivalent here

Please see box above. If possible, indicate in which results area(s) the project is expected to contribute to gender equality:

Closing gender gaps in access to and control over natural resources; Yes

Improving women's participation and decision making Yes

Generating socio-economic benefits or services or women Yes

Will the project’s results framework or logical framework include gender-sensitive indicators?

Yes

The logframe has gender mainstreamed indicators and targets e.g. in the objective statement, output 1.3.1, 3.1.2, and 4.1.1

A.5. Risks

Elaborate on indicated risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being, achieved, and, if possible, the proposedmeasures that address these risks at the time of project implementation.

Same as PIF stage. A.6. Institutional Arrangement and Coordination

Describe the Institutional arrangementfor project implementation. Elaborate on the planned coordination with other relevant GEF-financed projects and other initiatives.

The overall project governance and internal communication flows within the GEF CReW+ project are detailed in figure 2.

Figure 2: CReW+ national and regional level organization

IDB and UN Environment as GEF agencies, will be responsible for overall project supervision to ensure consistency with GEF, IDB and UN Environment policies and procedures, and will provide guidance on linkages with other IDB, UN Environment and GEF-funded projects and activities. Comprehensive project management will be achieved through a range of co-ordination, supervisory and advisory bodies, at the regional and national levels including:

At the regional level:

Inter-Agency Co-ordination Group (IACG)Steering Committee (SC)Project Coordination Group (PCG)CAR/RCU as Executing Agency of UN Environment led activities, and the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ) on behalf of IDB At the national level:National Focal Point (NFP); and National Project Steering Committee (NPSC) National Executing Agencies (NEA) with their National Management Units (NMU) The IACG will be formed between the IDB and UN Environment to monitor project implementation, review progress and propose corrective measures as appropriate. It will act as a progress review mechanism and interaction platform to ensure coordination of national and regional activities. The IACG will have quarterly meetings (virtual or in person) and will advise and respond to the SC Project Steering Committee meetings as appropriate.

The SC will meet annually to monitor progress in project execution, to provide strategic and policy guidance. The SC will be composed of participating countries’ representatives (NFPs), and additional national experts from the NMU as appropriate. Selected regional entities that are representative of the Wider Caribbean Region countries and the sanitation sector engaged in the project such as the Caribbean Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA), the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA), the Caribbean Water and Sewage Association (CAWASA), the Global Waters Operators Partnership (WOP) and regional WOPs (CariWOP and WOP-LAC), and the International Water Association (IWA) and Global Water Partnership-Caribbean (GWP-C) will also be invited to participate in the Steering Committee as observers as appropriate, along with other global and regional organizations (to be decided). The SC will endorse annual operation plans and budgets, technical and financial reports, and will assist in providing project oversight. If required, the SC may establish advisory groups for any identified need (i.e. technical advisory group).

The Project Co-ordination Group (PCG) will be established in order to carry out the day-to-day management of the CREW+ project. The PCG will coordinate execution of the Project under the oversight of UN Environment and IDB, and will be composed of a Project Coordinator, a Technical Specialist, a Communications Specialist and a Financial and 2 Administrative Specialists. The PCG will draw from the combined expertise of the IDB’s water sector specialists and UN Environment. Detailed information about the PCG and the institutional arrangement for national interventions is provided in Appendix 8 of the UN Environment project document and Annex K-AB of this document.

UN Environment’s Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office and Caribbean sub-regional office will assist the PCG and the executive agencies with political liaising with the 18 participating countries. Especially, they will bring the project activities and outcomes to the attention of high-level decision makers such as through the UN Environment’s Forum of Ministers of Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as through representing the organization in regional high-level forum such as SICA.

Additional Information not well elaborated at PIF Stage:

A.7. Benefits

Describe the socioeconomic benefits to be delivered by the project at the national and local levels. How do these benefits translate in supporting the achievement of global environement benefits (GEF Trust Fund) or adaptaion benefits (LDCF/SCCF)?

Approximately 245 million people live in the 18 countries participating in this project with the majority of the population living within 100-200 km of shoreline and the concentration of coastal population is expected to increase. Tourism and agriculture are two main sectors causing an increasing burden on water resources and wastewater. While the economy in the WCR is growing and the region has made significant improvements in human development, the benefits are not equally distributed. The region has high inequality and such disparity exists between urban and rural areas. In the rural areas, 46.2 % of the population in rural areas was affected by poverty in 2015 while in urban areas 23.8 % was living under the poverty line. Around 56% of workers are in vulnerable employment in rural areas as compared to 27% in urban areas[1]. It should be noted that a large population of indigenous communities and the youth live in rural areas. Poverty affects 46% of the indigenous population, which is twice as much as non-indigenous population[2]2. Youth unemployment rate continues to rise in the region and 19.5% of the youth was unemployed in 2017[3]3. Water use has been increasing worldwide by about 1% per year since the 1980s. The global cost–benefit studies have demonstrated that water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services provide good social and economic returns when compared with their costs, with a global average benefit–cost ratio of 5.5 for improved sanitation and 2.0 for improved drinking water - as summarized in Figure 3[4]4.

Figure 3 Average annual impact from inadequate drinking water and sanitation services, water-related disasters, epidemics and earthquakes, and conflicts

Overall, by promoting and supporting more integrated water and wastewater management in the WCR, the project will ensure that resources applied to water and wastewater management go further, i.e. the benefits are seen across several related sectors such as energy, agriculture, fisheries, and health while improving resilience of all of these sectors to climate change and variability – ensuring socioeconomic benefits.

In terms of specific socioeconomic benefits, the CReW+ is expected to contribute to the following:

· Increased access to water resources and wastewater management in rural/peri-urban communities, resulting in reduce risk from inadequate drinking water and sanitation services;

· Will contribute to ensuring that tourism is not negatively impacted due to pollution from wastewater and degradation of coastal ecosystems;

· Develop tailor-made financing options for urban, peri-urban and rural IWWM, including 8 financing action plans and business models to address IWWM including reuse and public–private mechanisms, payment options and recommendations to implement payment for ecosystem services developed in 3 critical watersheds;

· Through implementation of low-cost and innovative solutions to IWWM (Component 3), and corresponding capacity building and awareness raising, ensure that rural/peri-urban communities are able to fund and manage water resources and wastewater, and also ensuring that:

o Increase of 17,000 cubic meters per day of wastewater treated;

o Benefit 20,000 households from wastewater treatment; and

o Reduction of approximately 3,000 kilograms of BOD per day; 700 kilograms of nitrogen per day; and 100 kilograms of phosphorus per day.

The global environmental benefits obtained from implementing an integrated approach to water and wastewater management would be seen in the IW (as well as the LD focal area through IDB). The proposed project will also contribute to Aichi targets 8 (Reduce pollution), 10 (Minimize Reef loss), and 14 (Restore Ecosystems), as well as several SDG targets as further elaborated below.

[1] ILO. (2015). Panorama Laboral Temático 3: Trabajar en el campo en el siglo XXI. Realidad y perspectivas del empleo rural en América Latina y el Caribe (Versión revisada). Available in Spanish.

[2] World Bank. (2015). Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: World Bank.

[3] ILO. (2017). 2017 Labour Overview of Latin America and the Caribbean- Executive Summary.

[4] WWAP/UNESCO. (2019). The United Nations World Water Developement Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/water-security/wwap/wwdr/2019#download

A.8. Knowledge Management

Elaborate on the Knowledge management approach for the project, including, if any, plans for the project to learn from other relevant projects and initiatives (e.g. participate in trainings. conferences, stakeholder exchanges, virtual networks, project twinning) and plans for the project to assess and document ina user- friendly form (e.g. lessons learned briefs, engaging websites, guidebooks based on experience) and share these experiences and expertise (e.g. participate in community of practices, organize seminars, trainings and conferences) with relevant stakeholders.

No changes to this section since PIF approval. Details about the key project targets addressing Knowledge Management can be found in the Results framework, Annex A, under Component 4.B. Description of the consistency of the project with:

B.1. Consistency with National Priorities

Describe the consistency of the project with nation strategies and plans or reports and assessements under relevant conventions such as NAPAs, NAPs, ASGM NAPs, MIAs, NBSAPs, NCs, TNAs, NCSAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, BURs, INDCs, etc.

Relevance to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals

This project will contribute to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) especially Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally”. The project will promote wastewater treatment in order to reduce environmental as well as human health impacts.

Other relevant targets under Goal 6 include:

a. 6.2: By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

b. 6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

c. 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

d. 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

e. 6.A: By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

f. 6.B: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management

This project will aim to take an integrated approach in managing water including wastewater with a focus on watershed management and community-level intervention in line with 6.5, 6.6 and 6.B. The project will build on the experiences especially the national roadmaps for integrated water resource management developed under the IWCAM project and will harness synergies with the IWECO project for integrated water resource management including wastewater. This project will focus on community-level intervention and will improve access to sanitation particularly in rural areas as envisaged in Target 6.2. Capacity building will also be provided to the participating countries in line with Target 6.A. The capacity building will cover different aspects of integrated wastewater management including the preparation of policies, operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities, and communication on wastewater.

As the SDGs need to be implemented in an integral manner, other SDGs are also relevant to this project including the following:

· 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.

· 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.

· 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

· 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

· 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.

· 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

· 13.B: Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.

· 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.

· 14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and act for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.

· 14.5: By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.

· 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.

· 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.

· 17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.

17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.

17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology.

17.16 Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.

This project will reframe wastewater and sludge as a resource rather than waste using the concept of circular economy in line with Target 12.4 and 12.5. Such wastewater reuse would include use for irrigation, supporting sustainable food production (2.4). By reducing wastewater directly released to water bodies and then to the ocean, the project will reduce human health impacts (3.9) as well as environmental impacts in the marine and coastal environment including coastal mangrove forests and their associated biodiversity (14.1, 14.5 and 15.5). By targeting rural communities, this project will aim to improve access to sanitation along with sustainable financial plans (1.4). These local interventions will be made in an inclusive manner assuring the participation of women, youth and local communities in line with 13.B. National interventions especially in the small island developing states will pay close attention to national climate change policies and action plans to improve wastewater management.

Relevance to global agenda and Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The project is also relevant to other global agenda such as the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (S.A.M.O.A Pathway) and the MEAs including the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). Below linkages with these global agenda and MEAs are reviewed (Table 5).

Table 5. Ratification Status of relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements[1]

Country CBD Ramsar UNFCCC Basel UNCLOS MARPOL IV London Convention

Ballast water

Barbados X X X (P) X X X X X

Belize X X X (P) X X X

Colombia X X X (P) X X

Costa Rica X X X (P) X X X

Cuba X X X (P) X X X

Dominican Republic X X X(P) X X X X

Grenada X X X(P) X X

Guatemala X X X(P) X X X X

Guyana X X(P) X X X

Honduras X X X(P) X X X X X

Country CBD Ramsar UNFCCC Basel UNCLOS MARPOL IV London Convention

Ballast water

Jamaica X X X(P) X X X X X

Mexico X X X(P) X X X X

Panama X X X(P) X X X X X

St. Kitts and Nevis X X(P) X X X X

Saint Lucia X X X(P) X X X X X

St. Vincent and the Grenadines X X(P) X X X X

Suriname X X X (-) X X X X X

Trinidad and Tobago X X X(P) X X X X X

Through Paragraph 64 of the SIDS Accelerated Modality of Action [SAMOA] Pathway, UN Member States recognize that “Small Island Developing States face numerous challenges with respect to freshwater resources, including pollution, the overexploitation of surface, ground and coastal waters, saline intrusion, drought and water scarcity, soil erosion, water and wastewater treatment and the lack of access to sanitation and hygiene. Furthermore, changes in rainfall patterns related to climate change have regionally varying and potentially significant impacts on water supply”. Further to this, they decided to facilitate the expansion of wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse in the context of the sustainable and efficient use of water resources through Paragraph 65 (c). Thus, the project is in line with this commitment to support Small Island Developing States with regard to water and sanitation.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (Sendai Framework) was adopted in 2015 with a view to significantly reducing disaster risk and loss of life. Paragraph 33 (c) of the Sendai Framework recognises that it is important to promote the new and existing water infrastructure for disaster risk reduction at the national level. At the regional level, the role of international organisations in raising awareness of water-related disaster risks was highlighted. This project, therefore, aims to raise awareness on the linkage of water management with climate change-induced disaster risks.

Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development was adopted in 2015. The agenda serves as the foundation for financing sustainable development. The Agenda recognizes that Investing in sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including transport, energy, water and sanitation for all, is a pre-requisite for achieving sustainable development. The Agenda further encourages the capacity development of local authorities as well as the participation of local communities in improving drinking water provisioning and sanitation management. This project responds to this call by conducting local interventions to improve water and wastewater management through community engagement with particular focus to rural areas.

Our Ocean, Our Future: Call for Action formulated at the UN Ocean Conference was adopted in June 2017 through GA Resolution 71/312. It demonstrates political commitments to protect and sustainably mange the ocean, recognizing the critical status of the marine environment. Through Paragraph 13 (g), accelerated action to prevent and significantly

address marine pollution including from wastewater was called upon. This project responds to this call, by providing innovative technologies and financing mechanisms to enhance integrated wastewater management.

The Convention on Biological Diversity: All eighteen (18) participating countries in the project have developed their national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). Most of the countries have updated their NBSAPs to incorporate the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In addition, in 2006, CCAD developed the Regional Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Central America (Original title in Spanish: Estrategia Regional para la conservacion y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad en mesoamerica) as a regional biodiversity strategy. This project will contribute to the NBSAPs as well as the regional strategy especially Expected Objective 2, which aims to develop initiatives for the protection, rehabilitation and sustainable use of ecosystems, by improving watershed management. It should be noted that these regional and national strategies may be further revised during the course of the project as the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is expected to be adopted in 2020.

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Fifteen (15) countries participating in this project have ratified the Ramsar Convention except Guyana, St Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Of the five Regional Ramsar Initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean region, the Initiative for the Conservation of Mangroves and Coral Reefs and the Initiative for Caribbean Wetlands are most relevant to the participating countries. This project will support the Work Plan 2018 of the Initiative for the Conservation of Mangroves and Coral Reefs, particularly its Objective 2 “Achieve effective management of mangroves, corals and associated wetlands through integrated management of water basins and coastal zones incorporating means for climate change mitigation and adaptation”[2]. Under the Initiative for Caribbean Wetlands, a regional strategy was developed to support the implementation of the Ramsar Convention by the Caribbean States. During the biannual 2016-2017, the Initiative has produced a map of regional and national actors, and developed communication materials such as a broacher and a video.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): All eighteen (18) countries have ratified or acceded the Convention and seventeen (17) countries have ratified the Paris Agreement except Suriname, which has signed the Agreement. All seventeen countries party to the Paris Agreement have prepared their National Determined Contributions pursuant to the Agreement. Colombia and Saint Lucia have also prepared their National Adaptation Strategies. Both National Adaptation Strategies consider water resource management and the Saint Lucian strategy elaborates a sectoral adaptation strategy for the water sector, highlighting priority projects for water and sanitation. This project will contribute to the overall objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system by building resilience and adaptive capacity at the local, national and regional levels through the implementation of integrated water and wastewater management.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel Convention): The Basel Convention aims to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. Under the Convention, regional and sub-regional centres for training and technologies transfer have been established to support the implementation of the Convention. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there are three centres: the Regional Centre for the Caribbean in Trinidad and Tobago; Basel Convention Regional Centre for the South American Region in Argentina; and Basel Convention Coordinating Centre for Training and Technology Transfer for Latin America and Caribbean Region in Uruguay. Among 18 participating countries, all countries except Grenada have ratified the Basel Convention.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): UNCLOS provides the overall governance framework for the oceans and seas. Part XII of the Convention deals with the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment. Article 194 specifically talks about marine pollution and the Parties are expected to take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution. Under this overarching framework, the Cartagena Convention and its LBS Protocol provide specific measures on land-based pollution including domestic sewage.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL): MARPOL sets the international legal framework for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. Annex IV deals with the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. Although this project does not directly deal with wastewater management of ships, this convention is relevant to the health of marine and coastal environment. Annex IV prohibits the discharge of sewage into the sea unless the ship has an approved sewage treatment plant in operation or when the ship discharged disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the

nearest land. Ships are required to discharge sewage that is not comminute or disinfected at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Participating countries of the project, except Costa Rica, Cuba, Grenada and Mexico, have ratified this Annex.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention): The London Convention promotes the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and to take all practicable steps to prevent pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other matter. The London Protocol of the Convention list sewage sludge as one of eight wastes that may be considered for dumping at sea following stringent assessment and licensing processes. It has been reported that dumping of sewage sludge has seen a global decline over the years[3].

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (Ballast Water Convention): The Ballast Water Convention has entered into force in 2017. The Convention aims to prevent the spread of harmful aquatic organisms from one region to another, by establishing standards and procedures for the management and control of ships' ballast water and sediments. Ships are required to have a ship-specific ballast water management plan. Although this project does not deal with ballast water management, implementation of this convention is an important contributor for the health of the marine environment in the WCR.

UN Convention to Combat Desertification and Land Degradation (UNCCD). Every CReW+ participating country is a party to UNCCD and National Action Programmes (NAPs) have been formulated by Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Several Sub-Regional Programmes (SRAPs) have also been launched and further implemented including, Dominican Republic and Colombia.

Relevance to Regional Priorities

The Cartagena Convention and the LBS Protocol

The Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) is one of the seven Regional Seas programmes administered by UN Environment. Based on the Caribbean Action Plan (1981) outlining regional environmental challenges, the Cartagena Convention[4] was adopted in 1983. The Convention is a framework agreement for the protection and development of the marine environment of the WCR. It provides legal basis for regional cooperation and coordinated national actions in the WCR. As of December 2018, 26 countries have ratified or acceded the Cartagena Convention.

The Convention is supplemented by three Protocols; (i) the Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Oil Spills (1983); (ii) the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) (1990); and (iii) the Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities (LBS) (1999). The Oil Spills Protocol was adopted in 1983 together with the Cartagena Convention and all the countries that ratified the Cartagena Convention have ratified the Protocol.

Of particular relevance to this project is the LBS Protocol. Ten countries (10) participating in this project have ratified or acceded the LBS Protocol while the other eight (8) countries have not ratified the Protocol. The eight (8) countries are at various stages for the ratification of the Protocol and require tailor-made support to facilitate ratification (Table 6).

Table 6. Ratification Status of the Cartagena Convention and its Protocols

Country Cartagena Convention Oil Spill Protocol SPAW Protocol LBS Protocol

Barbados 28-May-85 28-May-85 14-Oct-02

Belize 22-Sep-99 22-Sep-99 4-Jan-08 4-Feb-08

Colombia 3-Mar-88 3-Mar-88 5-Jan-98

Costa Rica 1-Aug-91 1-Aug-91 26-May-16

Cuba 15-Sep-88 15-Sep-88 4-Aug-98

Dominican Republic 24-Nov-98 24-Nov-98 24-Nov-98 6-Sep-12

Grenada 17-Aug-87 5-Mar-12 5-Mar-12

Guatemala 18-Dec-89 18-Dec-89

Guyana 14-Jul-10 14-Jul-10 14-Jul-10 14-Jul-10

Honduras 13-Oct-18 13-Oct-18 13-Oct-18 13-Oct-18

Jamaica 1-Apr-87 1-Apr-87 5-Nov-15

Mexico 11-Apr-85 11-Apr-85

Panama 6-Nov-87 6-Nov-87 27-Sep-96 9-Jul-03

St. Kitts and Nevis 15-Jun-99 15-Jun-99

Saint Lucia 30-Nov-84 30-Nov-84 18-May-00 30-Jan-08

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 11-Jul-90 11-Jul-90 26-Jul-91

Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago 24-Jan-86 24-Jan-86 10-Aug-99 28-Mar-03

The Protocol includes regional effluent limitations for domestic wastewater (sewage) and requires the development of plans to address agricultural non-point sources of pollution[5]5.

Other regional and sub-regional polices and strategies relevant to wastewater management in the WCR

There are a number of other relevant regional policies and strategies which include:

The OECS model water policy provides a model policy and legislation for OECS member states to revise and update their existing instruments related to water management.

The draft OECS Building Code and Building Guidelines seeks through introduction of building standards, to prevent or mitigate damage of extreme natural events. Codes are based on the Caribbean Uniform Building Code (CUBiC) and other regional codes.

The Regional Environmental Strategy Framework (Estrategia Regional Ambiental Marco) 2015-2020 was approved by the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD) Ministers in 2014. The Strategy aims to integrate SICA subsystems and national actions towards sustainable management of the ecosystems in the region. One of the main strategic focuses include comprehensive management of water resources.

Regional Strategic Action Plan for Governance and Building Climate Resilience in the Water Sector in the Caribbean presents five pillars of action to build resilience of the water sector: (i) water sector governance, (ii) climate- informed decision support, (iii) climate-resilient water resources management, (iv) climate- resilient water service provision, and (v) capacity building and public sensitization to build climate resilience.

The CLME+ SAP (2015-2025) was developed under the UNDP/GEF CLME Project (2009-2014). The CLME+ sets priority strategies and actions required to improve the transboundary governance and management of shared living marine resources in the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems region (CLME+ region).

The SAP for the Integrated Management of Water Resources of the Amazon Basin was adopted in 2016 by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela. The SAP serves as a guiding instrument for regional cooperation for the water resource management in the Amazon Basin.

Relevant national development strategies

In majority of the countries, effective implementation of the strategies and plans under the frameworks of the Conventions require realignment and reform of the national policy, legislative and institutional arrangements. These strategies and plans need to be mainstreamed into national development frameworks. Such frameworks typically include national development strategies, land use and land development policies, plans and associated regulations, water supply/management laws, forestry and wildlife laws and laws concerning pollution, public and environmental health. In the majority of the countries the enabling environment does not facilitate integrated management approaches as advocated under the convention obligations. These are important barriers that persist, that the project will seek to address.

Table 7 presents the overview of relevant national policies and strategies (which are further detailed in the National Packages). Many countries have already started developing overall national development strategy in line with the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. For water management, some countries have national integrated water management policy or strategies while others have climate change adaptation strategies which incorporate specific strategies for the water sector. Even in countries that do not have a sector-specific policy for water management, general environmental policy and/or strategies exist. However, in most cases, water policy or climate change action for the water sector focuses primarily on drinking water and integration of wastewater management has been lacking. Nevertheless, progress has been made by countries like Jamaica to develop the Wastewater Management Policy and by Colombia to develop the Strategic Vision 2018-2030: Water and Basic Sanitation Plan (El Plan Director de Agua y Saneamiento Básico – Visión Estratégica 2018-2030). For those countries that have not yet developed policies for wastewater management, further elaboration of integrated wastewater management policies within existing policies or as an additional policy is desirable. Further details of national policies and strategies for each country are available in National Packages.

Table 7. Relevant national strategies and policies

Country Relevant Strategies / Policies

Barbados· National Strategic Plan 2005-2025· National Water Conservation Plan· Draft Policy Framework for Water Resources Development and Management

Belize · Horizon 2030: National Development Framework for Belize 2010-2030· National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy

Colombia · El Plan Director de Agua y Saneamiento Básico – Visión Estratégica 2018-2030

Costa Rica

· La Política Nacional de Saneamiento en Aguas Residuales (PNSAR)· La Política Hídrica Nacional· Plan Nacional de Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos de Costa Rica· El Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (PND) y los Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible

Cuba · Tarea Vida: Plan de Estado para el enfrentamiento al cambio climático· Política Nacional del Agua en Cuba

Dominican Republic · La propuesta de Estrategia Nacional de Saneamiento (ENS)

Grenada

· Grenada National Sustainable Development Plan 2030· National Water Policy· National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (NAP) For Grenada, Carriacou And Petite Martinique (2017-2021)· Grenada—Blue Growth Coastal Master Plan

Guatemala · La Política Nacional del Agua de Guatemala y su Estrategia (PNAGE)

Guyana· The Climate Resilience Strategy and Action Plan for Guyana· National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy· The Framework of the Guyana Green State Development Strategy and Financing Mechanisms

Honduras · Ley Marco del Sector Agua y Saneamiento (GdH, 2003)

Jamaica

· The Vision 2030 Jamaica – National Development Plan· The National Sanitation Policy · The Jamaica Water Sector Policy· The Water Resources Development Master Plan · The Wastewater Management Policy

Mexico · Programa Nacional Hídrico 2014 – 2018· Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-001-SEMARNAT-2017

Panama · Plan Nacional de Seguridad Hídrica 2015-205

St. Kitts and Nevis· Medium Term Economic Management Strategy 2018-2020· National Environmental Action Plan· National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS)

Saint Lucia · Saint Lucia’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) 2018–2028· Saint Lucia National Policy on Wastewater Management

St. Vincent and the Grenadines· The National Economic and Development Plan 2013-2025· National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) 2004- 2006· Draft National Physical Development Plan (NPDP)

Suriname

· The Development Plan 2017-2021· The Suriname Water Supply Master Plan· The National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCPSAP - 2015) · The National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS)

Trinidad and Tobago · Vision 2030: The National Development Strategy of Trinidad and Tobago 2016-2030· National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy

[1] P: ratification of the Paris Agreement; X: ratified or acceded; -: not ratified or acceded

[2] https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/rri_mangroves_and_reefs_2017-18.pdf

[3] http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/IMO-244%20London%20Protocol%20Why%20is%20it%20needed.pdf

[4] CEP (1983) Text of the Cartagena Convention. Available at: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/text-of-the-cartagena-convention

[5] CEP (2018) Available at: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/lbs-protocol/protocol-concerning-pollution-from-land-based-sources-and-activities

C. Describe The Budgeted M & E Plan:The project M&E plan is consistent with the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policy. The Project Results Framework presented in Annex A include Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART) indicators for each expected outcome as well as mid-term and end-of-project targets. These indicators will be the main tools for assessing project implementation progress and whether project results are being achieved. Other M&E related costs are also presented in the Costed M&E Plan (table 9) and are fully integrated in the overall project budget. Please refer to UN Environment Appendix 5 for detailed M&E information.

For the inception phase, the PCG will prepare a detailed M&E plan and present it to the first Project Steering Committee (SC) meeting. The SC will be responsible for proposing any necessary amendments to the M&E plan during project implementation. Indicators and their means of verification may also be fine-tuned by the SC. Day-to-day project monitoring is the responsibility of the PCG but other project partners will have responsibilities to collect specific information to track the indicators. It is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator to inform the IACG of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely fashion. The Project Steering Committee will receive periodic reports on progress and will make recommendations to the PCG and IACG concerning the need to revise any aspects of the Results Framework or the M&E plan. Project oversight to ensure that the project meets UN Environment, IDB and GEF policies and procedures is the responsibility of the Task Managers in UN Environment-GEF and IDB. The Task Managers will also review the quality of draft project outputs, provide feedback to the project partners, and establish peer review procedures to ensure adequate quality of scientific and technical outputs and publications.

Project supervision will take an adaptive management approach. The Project Coordinator will develop a project supervision plan at the inception of the project which will be communicated to the project partners during the first meeting of the SC. The Project Coordinator will also be responsible for initial screening of the financial and administrative

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/IMO-244%20London%20Protocol%20Why%20is%20it%20needed.pdf

http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/text-of-the-cartagena-convention

http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/lbs-protocol/protocol-concerning-pollution-from-land-based-sources-and-activities

reports from the core partners prior to their submission. Progress vis-à-vis the delivery of agreed project outputs will be assessed by the SC at least annually. Project risks and assumptions will be regularly reviewed both by project partners and the PCG. Risk assessment and rating is an integral part of the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR), preparation of which will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator. The quality of project monitoring and evaluation will also be reviewed and rated as part of the PIR and the PSC shall clear the PIR prior to its final submission. Key financial parameters will be monitored quarterly to ensure cost-effective use of financial resources.

A mid-term review will be conducted by the IDB and UN Envrionment Task Managers in consultation with the Project Coordinator and the outcomes reported to the Project Steering Committee. The purpose of the mid-term review is to identify corrective measures and/or changes to the intended work plan of the CReW+. The MTE will focus on the following: (i) level of progress in attaining the project objectives stated in the Results Matrix; (ii) level of acceptance of procedures developed under the project; and (iii) degree of effectiveness of the internal and the IDB’s and UN Environment’s monitoring and supervision system.

An independent terminal evaluation will take place at the end of project implementation. IDB will manage the terminal evaluation process and submit it along with the report to the GEF Evaluation Office not later than 6 months after the completion of the evaluation. IDB will be responsible for the coordination of both review and final evaluation but will work in close collaboration with UN Environment evaluation office.

The TE will be jointly managed by IDB and UN Environment under IDB’s lead. Specifically:

· The Terminal Evaluation will be managed jointly by IDB and UN Environment Evaluation Offices. IDB will lead the Terminal Evaluation (TE) and will liaise with the UN Environment Evaluation Office throughout the process. Key decision points in the evaluation process will be made jointly by both Evaluation Offices in a collaborative manner [finalisation of Evaluation ToRs, Selection of independent evaluation consultants and acceptance of draft and final reports]. The TE will provide an independent assessment of project performance in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, and determine the likelihood of impact and sustainability. It will have two primary purposes: (i) to provide evidence of results to meet accountability requirements, and (ii) to promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing through results and lessons learned among IDB, UN Environment and executing partners. The direct costs of the evaluation will be charged against the project evaluation budget.

· The TE report will be sent to project stakeholders for comment. Formal comments on the report will be shared by the Evaluation Offices in an open and transparent manner. The project performance will be assessed against standard evaluation criteria using a six-point rating scheme. The final determination of project ratings will be made by the Evaluation Offices of IDB and UN Environment when report is finalised. The evaluation report will be publicly disclosed and may be followed by a recommendation compliance process.

The project’s target contributions to the GEF 6 Core indicators is highlighted in Annex E of the CEO Endorsement document. These will be updated at mid-term and at the end of the project and will be made available to the GEF Secretariat along with the project PIR report. As mentioned above the mid-term review and terminal evaluation will verify the information of the target contributions.

Monitoring Responsibilities and Events

CReW+ is implemented by IDB and UN Environment, and as such activities will follow each agencies policies and procedures. The monitoring procedures of IDB are detailed in the IDB Technical Cooperation Document. It should be noted that activities implemented by IDB, through GIZ will follow the IBD Bank’s financial management guidelines (OP-273-6). An Operational Manual will establish operational procedures that GIZ will follow (See Annex AC).

Regarding UN Environment, project oversight to ensure that the project meets UN Environment and GEF policies and procedures is the responsibility to the Task Manager in UN Environment-GEF. The Task Manager will also review the quality of draft project outputs, provide feedback to the project partners, and establish peer review procedures to ensure adequate quality of scientific and technical outputs and publications.

Day to day monitoring of the overall project implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordination Group (PCG) based on the Project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Regional Project Coordinator will inform UN Environment of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. The Regional Project Coordinator will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the Project in consultation with the full PCG and with support from the Inter-Agency Co-ordination Group (IACG) composed of UN Environment and IDB. The PCG will oversee monitoring of the entire project, while UN Environment CAR/RCU will lead execution of UN Environment activities with co-executing partners. In parallel GIZ will execute the IDB implemented activities. The established indicators will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan.

Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by UN Environment (and IDB) through the provision of quarterly reports, half-yearly reports submitted by each partner to the PCG. The Project Steering Committee will receive periodic reports on progress and will make recommendations to UN Environment and IDB concerning the need to revise any aspects of the Results Framework or the M&E plan. Furthermore, specific meetings can be scheduled between the PCG, IACG and executing partners and other pertinent stakeholders as appropriate and relevant (e.g. Steering Committee members, Co-funding partners, etc). Such meetings will allow parties to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the Project in a timely fashion and to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

Project Monitoring Reporting

The Regional Project Coordinator in conjunction with the PCG team, IACG will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Table 8 summarizes project monitoring reporting.

Table 8. Summary of project monitoring reporting

M&E Reporting Timing Responsibility

Inception Report and Project Supervision Plan- Detailed M&E Plan- Detailed workplan - Detailed budget- Detailed activities (especially national interventions)- Detailed Inception Report (include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners)

Draft developed. Final version following inception workshop

PCG building on Executing Agency inputs and in consultation with IDB and UN Environment

Annual Operations Plan- List of activities to be implemented each year- Timeline

Draft for first year developed. Final version after inception workshop

Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG, in consultation with IDB and UN Environment

Half-yearly Progress Report- Progress and activities completed; - Progress against annual work plan;- Review of implementation plans, - Summary of problems and adaptive management;- Activity plans for the next quarter; and- Project outputs for review

Half-yearly, within 15 days of each reporting period Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG

Quarterly and Annual Financial report- Project expenditures according to established project budget and allocations;- Budgetary plans for the next quarter;- Requests further cash transfers;- Requests budget revision as necessary; and- Inventory of non-expendable equipment procured for project

Quarterly, within 15 days of each reporting period Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG

Annual Progress Reports (Project Implementation Review - PIR)- Consolidated review of progress and outputs of project actions;- Progress against Annual work plan; - Best practices and lessons learnt;- Progress plans and budgetary requirements for the following reporting period;- General source of information for general project reporting; and- PIR

30 days after the end of the period Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG in consultation with IDB and UN Environment

Procurement Plan- Procurement plan for upcoming 12 months Annually Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG

External Audit- Audit reports of project accounts and records Annually and at project completion Independent auditor – hired by Executing Agencies

Table 9. Costed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

UN Envrionment IDB Co-financingMonitoring and Evaluation activities under Components 5 and 6 GEF Funding

(US$)GEF Funding

(US$) (US$)

Total component Cost (US$)

Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation

5.2 Mid-term Review 0 35,000 50,000 85,000

5.3 Terminal evaluation (TE) 0 64,468 50,000 114,468

5.3 Effective M&E by the Project Coordination Group (PCG) 179,000 256,341 100,000 535,341

Co-financing report- Co-financing provided to the project; and- Co-financing inputs against GEF approved financing plan

Annually Executing Agencies- coordination by PCG

Mid-term Review- Detailed review of project management, actions;- Outputs and impacts at mid-term; - Recommendations for remedial action and/or revision of work plans as appropriate

Quarter immediately following project mid-term

Project Coordination, IDB and UN Environment with inputs from executing partners and SC members

Project Completion Report- Consolidated review of project effectiveness, progress towards outcomes and technical outputs of project actions;- Final best practices and lessons learnt;- Report on project expenditures

Two months after project completion PCG with input from Executing Agencies

Terminal Evaluation (jointly implemented)- Independent evaluation of project management, actions, outputs and impacts;- Sustainability analysis- Project effectiveness; - Technical outputs;- Lessons learned;- Progress towards outcomes

Within 6 months of project completion

Independent Evaluator(s) – hired by IDB and UN Environment as GEF agencies

5.4 Inception meeting and detailed workplan, revised budget and detailed national actions 43,000 0 100,000 143,000

5.5 Steering Committee meeting 44,050 0 100,000 144,050

5.6. Closing Conference 51,965 0 100,000 151,965

TOTAL M&E TOTAL 318,015 355,809 500,000 1,173,824

PART III: Certification by GEF partner agency(ies)

A. GEF Agency(ies) certification

GEF Agency Coordinator Date Project Contact Person Telephone Email

Juan Pablo Bonilla 5/22/2019 David Wilk Climate Change Lead Specialist 1202623143 [email protected]

Kelly West 5/22/2019 Isabelle Van der Beck 2029741314 [email protected]

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK (either copy and paste here the framework from the Agency document, or provide reference to the page in the project document where the framework could be found).

Please see attached ANNEX A as Results Matrix.

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).

STAP Comments Response

1. The project seeks to build on the successful pilot project (GEF ID 3766) which focused on innovative financing of wastewater management, a summary of which is presented as Annex 1 of the PIF. The present proposal seeks to extend the predecessor project's work on financing mechanisms, but also aims to promote innovative small-scale technical solutions across the wider Caribbean Region. Overall, STAP agrees those are worthy objectives, particularly if applied at several sub-national scales, i.e. municipality, local community and individual households.

Noted

2. STAP's reading of the PIF however, has raised several questions about the science and technical issues involved in managing wastewater, which are further explored below. These questions relate to the feasibility and potential of wastewater treatment described in Component 3, and have led to STAP's advisory rating of Minor Issues to be considered. Accordingly, please address the points raised below to the satisfaction of STAP, by CEO endorsement stage.

Noted

3. STAP fully accepts that a major opportunity exists to protect freshwater supplies from pollution, regarding surface water or groundwater, and also to avoid pollution in all its forms from reaching the sea. The PIF uses the terms wastewater and treatment throughout; however, these can apply to a very wide range of conditions and scenarios. For example, wastewater can range in treatment challenge from ‘grey' water arising from washing, through raw sewage and to effluent from pesticides use or worse. Equally, treatment can range from simple soil soakaways, through settlement ponds and wetland N stripping, through fully specified sewage treatment works capable of removing N, P, and some persistent organic pollutants. Thus the service standards applying to waste water treatment depend upon where the resulting discharge 2 ends up. If it is likely to enter rivers or the sea, a higher standard of effluent treatment is required (e.g. discharge to ecologically sensitive waters: P<1 (mg/l), N<10m/l, BoD<25m/l, CoD<100mg/l, suspended solids 35m/l, therefore demanding an infeasibly high standard from small scale household or small community wastewater treatment. Nowhere in the, already very lengthy PIF, does it state what the treatment objectives are with associated standards even in outline terms, thus “innovate wastewater treatment” remains a mystery throughout. Please address this gap.

The identification and deployment of technological options (mostly decentralized) offer the most potential for replicability and sustainability. A wide range of solutions are available to increase coverage, reduce capital and operational costs, increase efficiency in service provision and assure long-term support from local communities. A critical aspect to achieve success is to assure that the institutional and financial capacities are built into the design and the implementation of the innovative technologies, and that adequate financial solutions are provided to assure sustainability in the long run.

The project will focus on domestic wastewater including sewage. e.g. Annex III of the LBS Protocol defines domestic wastewater and discharge criteria are based on discharges to rivers and/or coastal and marine ecosystems.

The reuse opportunities will focus on grey water and/or sewage that is treated at least to secondary or third level which would enable recovery of nutrients, water for non-potable irrigation and energy recovery.

The full project document has developed a complete description of type of technologies and indicators which are included in the Annex K to AB: Country National Packages and Annex A: Project Results Framework.

4. STAP has real concerns that if wastewater treatment results are considered only in terms of simplistic targets then very unrealistic expectations may result for informal wastewater treatment, cumulatively achieving very little improvement at watershed scale. Stripping out BoD, fecal coliforms and sediment can work in small-scale treatment works, but the ecologically active nutrients (N, P) simply pass through, together with undesirable persistent organic pollutants, if already present. Thus, the Component 3 rationale text provided in the PIF noting, "…at least 50% of the interventions will involve low-cost innovative technologies that have proven to be very effective in treatment and reuse…" is far too cryptic. What are these technologies, where is the published performance characteristics of these, and does the project really wish to risk endorsement of these for replication across the watersheds of multiple countries? At the very least this issue should be explicitly stated in the risks table.

As indicated, most decentralized technologies are not as effective as centralized treatment systems, however the first step for this vulnerable communities will be focus on reduce risk to human health, cost effectiveness, livelihood opportunities – biosolids, and provide access to water and sanitation services to the local, rural and peri-urban communities.

The full project document has developed a complete description of type of technologies which are included in the Annex K to AB: Country National, however during the implementation phase the project will continue developing these types of technologies and will consider the comments raised.

At watershed scale, the project will carry out community based capacity training activities, knowledge exchanges, will guide the community in identifying culturally appropriate solutions, involved in operations and maintenance and the general awareness and outreach. The project will also develop an integrated guidelines and implementation plan consistent with IWRM with a focus on water source protection and use efficiency

5. The project objective calls for small-scale solutions and the emphasis of the project is on domestic water and wastewater management. Within the wider context of wastewater management it would be helpful to have estimated the contribution towards reducing the total pollutant load by targeting domestic wastewater improvement. What will be the likely outcome at watershed scale, given the other point source and especially diffuse pollution sources, of targeting domestic sources in terms of total loads of key indicator chemicals?

The State of the Convention Area Report (SOCAR) developed by the Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP CEP,2019) evidence as to the impact and loading of pollutants from domestic wastewater and sewage. In addition to organic matter, nutrients, and suspended solids, it also contains pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and other infectious organisms found in human excrement and other waste.

At wastewater level, due to the limited funding, the contribution will not make a great impact, but the emphasis of the project will be more on demonstrating the viability of the solutions to be replicated.

At the watershed level the impact will be bigger, however, the interventions will not be at watershed level but rather at a community level e.g. coastal communities.

6. Cost-benefit analysis might be considered as part of a decision framework to select the appropriate technology at a given location (what are the marginal costs of removing additional types of pollutants vs the environmental harm that could be prevented, and how do these cost-benefit ratios compare among alternate technological solutions). Economies of scale play an obvious role: areas/communities with larger wastewater volumes are likely to justify more complex technologies capable of removing more types and larger amounts of pollutants. Institutional design considerations (including government, community, private sector commitment to ongoing maintenance of facilities) should also factor into the decision framework.

During the previous GEF CReW project, cost benefit analysis were conducted for the 4 pilot project. Building on the previous experience, analysis for the appropriate technology will be carried out for each intervention.

An assessment of the technologies based on funds available and target was done but can be further refined following the technology review.

Comments from Germany Response

The full project proposal should be condensed with regard to generic descriptions and expanded concerning i.e. the description of the proposed components, which remains rather vague on the PIF, as well as with regard to specifics such as the type of innovative technologies for wastewater treatment proposed. Precise definitions of innovation are often lacking and need to be included in the full project proposal. This should also address the treatment objectives. Currently, the PIF shows a certain lack of consistency, maybe also due to the lengthy descriptions, which should be obliterated in the full project proposal.

The identification and deployment of technological options (mostly decentralized) offer the most potential for replicability and sustainability. A wide range of solutions are available to increase coverage, reduce capital and operational costs, increase efficiency in service provision and assure long-term support from local communities. A critical aspect to achieve success is to assure that the institutional and financial capacities are built into the design and the implementation of the innovative technologies, and that adequate financial solutions are provided to assure sustainability in the long run.

The project will focus on domestic wastewater including sewage. e.g. Annex III of the LBS Protocol defines domestic wastewater and discharge criteria are based on discharges to rivers and/or coastal and marine ecosystems.

The reuse opportunities will focus on grey water and/or sewage that is treated at least to secondary or third level which would enable recovery of nutrients, water for non-potable irrigation and energy recovery.

The full project document has developed a complete description of type of technologies and indicators which are included in the Annex K to AB: National Packages.

The upscaling potential should to be carved out clearer, especially focussing on the connection between the institutional framework and financial leverage. It is correctly stated that both are closely linked: where supportive policies and regulations already existed, there was greater incentive to seek access to the financing mechanisms to implement wastewater infrastructure projects. Based on this insight, the question arises why only half of the partner countries (9 out of 18) are selected for consolidation, improvement and reform of the institutional, policy and legislative frameworks. This selection should be openly addressed and reasoned in the full project proposal.

The comment raised is one of the main lessons learnt during the previous CReW project, which was considered during the preparation of this project. The link between the institutional, financial and implementation component is embedded in the vertical logic of the project.

During the preparation phase, more than 9 countries requested activities for consolidation, improvement and reform of the institutional, policy and legislative frameworks, and these have been included in the project.

The full project document has developed a complete description of the activities identified which are included in the Annex K to AB: National Packages.

Different financial modalities for wastewater management projects were successfully tested and evaluated in the frame of the GEF CReW project. The full project proposal should include concrete ideas on how the lessons learnt will be used for scaling up successful approaches. It could generally be advisable to place stronger focus – also with regard to the available project funds – on the upscaling and implementation of successful approaches than on testing new financial mechanisms and technologies, as a bundle of lessons learnt seems to be already available from experience within the frame of the CReW-project.

Annex G: Achievements and lessons learnt have been added to illustrate the learnings and recommendations from the previous GEF CReW project.

ANNEX C: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS.

A. Provide detailed funding amount of the PPG activities financing status in the table below:

PPG Grant Approved at PIF: 300,000

GEF/LDCF/SCCF Amount ($)Project Preparation Activities Implemented

Budgeted Amount Amount Spent To date Amount Committed

Consultancy for the coordination of the general planning and logistic activities to support the design of the four (4) project components of the Full-size GEF project.

65,000

65,000 65,000

Technical Assistance supporting the collation of all national baseline and in the selection and design of National Interventions

99,500 99,500 99,500

Technical Assistance supporting the collation of all regional baseline, data integration of the GEF Thematic Areas including comprehensive Project Design for all Components

73,000 73,000 73,000

Country & Partners PPG Consultation Workshop 42,500 42,500 42,500

Country Missions, National Consultations 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total 300,000 300,000 300,000

ANNEX D: CALENDAR OF EXPECTED REFLOWS (if non-grant instrument is used)

Provide a calendar of expected reflows to the GEF/LDCF/SCCF/CBIT Trust Funds or to your Agency (and/or revolving fund that will be set up)

ANNEX E: GEF 7 Core Indicator Worksheet

Use this Worksheet to compute those indicator values as required in Part I, Table G to the extent applicable to your proposed project. Progress in programming against these targets for the program will be aggregated and reported at any time during the replenishment period. There is no need to complete this table for climate adaptation projects financed solely through LDCF and SCCF.

Please see Attached Annex E.ANNEX: Project Taxonomy Worksheet

Use this Worksheet to list down the taxonomic information required under Part1 by ticking the most relevant keywords/topics//themes that best describes the project

Please see attachement Annex F named Taxonomy Worksheet

Submitted to GEF Secretariat Review

Go To Home